Jeff Danziger for April 30, 2012

  1. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  almost 12 years ago

    Hmm, like the warning on claymores “this side toward the enemy”, and the classic, “do not eat contents”.

     •  Reply
  2. Don quixote 1955
    OmqR-IV.0  almost 12 years ago

    Well, if we are going to be talking in a British accent:“defence”.

     •  Reply
  3. Missing large
    g.iangoodson  almost 12 years ago

    Probably, because the USA won’t play unless we do all these crazy things. Ever seen your list of security requirements? It’s an insult to other free nations.

     •  Reply
  4. Avat
    Richard Howland-Bolton Premium Member almost 12 years ago

    Wouldn’t surprise me to learn (in a few decades) that this was a requirement by the US.And if You’ve ever been near a US airport and TSA you’ll say that cartoonists in glass houses shouldn’t throw missiles.

     •  Reply
  5. Missing large
    Fourcrows  almost 12 years ago

    The surveillance system in London can follow a single person from one end if the city to another. With some extra personnel on the street from some of their elite military units, a suspect could be apprehended within minutes of identification. These rockets seem unnecessary and dangerous, increasing the chance of collateral damage significantly. Not to mention the fact that a well trained militant extremist group could very easily set them off themselves if they wanted to. Whose idea was this? It certainly sounds like something the CIA would come up with…

     •  Reply
  6. Missing large
    g.iangoodson  almost 12 years ago

    Actually, it might not happen The cartoon is pre-empting. The batteries would be put on the roofs of house by Chinook helicopters IF the roofs in question can take the weight. There are also issues of fire risk and where any destroyed aircfraft might land. In short, it’s still in the ‘site-evaluation’ stage.

     •  Reply
  7. Missing large
    g.iangoodson  almost 12 years ago

    Given the number of illegal immigrants and anti-western ideologies present in the country, the undetected crime etc. hardly tightly controlled. And you are wrong about the surveillance system – been watching to many episodes of ‘Spooks’ lately?

     •  Reply
  8. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  almost 12 years ago

    Shooting down a 747 over downtown London seems like such a brilliant idea.

     •  Reply
  9. Don quixote 1955
    OmqR-IV.0  almost 12 years ago

    The rockets must have been supplied by us American taxpayers – the instructions are in English.IF they were American missiles, then they would have been bought, earning you, the US taxpayer, revenue. As it is, the suggested missiles (not that I think it’s a great idea) are likely to be British made Starstreak HVMs.

     •  Reply
  10. Missing large
    bbhc  almost 12 years ago

    Whist some of us in London look forward to the Olympics others like me wish I could spend the time out of LondonJeff hits the spot!

     •  Reply
  11. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  almost 12 years ago

    Tigger: was Max Factor a “rouge terrorist”??? Aren’t you a even a little “red faced”?

     •  Reply
  12. Don quixote 1955
    OmqR-IV.0  almost 12 years ago

    Erm, not 100 miles! All 5 major commercial London airports are within 35 miles of central London. The more-restricted zone pertains to immediate vicinities of Olympic venues (not only in London) and affects over 60 private airfields & flying schools. How do you think many foreign visitors will get to London? Across the chunnel?Tigger said @omQ REnglish is spoken in Great BritainIt is?! Well, I never! And I was wondering why they couldn’t understand me whenever I spoke French to them, even loudly.(btw, look up “barrage balloon”, it’s in English)

     •  Reply
  13. Froggy ico
    lbatik  almost 12 years ago

    A no fly zone within 100 miles??

    Do you have any idea whatsoever of where Heathrow and Gatwick are?

    Get real.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Jeff Danziger